Evangelicalism and Steve Chalke
Posted by Dyfed Roberts on Monday, January 28, 2013
Under: Post-Christendom
In making a public statement on the issue Steve Chalke's desire was to start a conversation within evangelicalism on same sex relationships. He has been partially successful and long may that conversation continue. An unintended consequence of his statement, however, is the fact that he has also shone a light on the current state of the evangelical community. While there is much to laud within the movement this episode has highlighted something that may be of concern.
Bebbington's quad
In 1989 the church historian David Bebbington published his seminal work Evangelicalism in Modern Britain and offered his four characteristics of what makes an evangelical: the necessity of conversion; an emphasis on activism; having the cross at the centre of one's faith; and finally the importance of the Bible and the 'belief that all spiritual truth is to be found within its pages'. These four points have been widely accepted as being the defining characteristics of the movement.
One key thing about them is that they are quite broad in their scope. For example, both Calvinists and Arminians can be included within the definition despite their differences. So while Whitefield and the Wesleys differed on what the Bible taught about soteriology, they are all considered evangelicals. There seems to be plenty of room within Bebbington's definition for evangelicals to disagree on how the Bible is understood. While the movement accepted that 'the Bible is inspired by God' Bebbington noticed that there was 'remarkable fluidity in ideas about the effects of inspiration on the text'.
Outside the camp
But has this breadth has been called into question by Steve Clifford, the EA's general secretary, in his response to Chalke? As I said last week Clifford took the opposite view on the subject of same-sex relationships. That in itself is quite uncontroversial - at least within evangelical circles. However, in his response he took his argument one step further and claimed that Chalke's interpretation put him outside evangelicalism. Indeed he even claimed that Chalke's interpretative method would lead people to a false 'god'. As I'm sure you'd agree that's a very strong statement.
In putting Chalke outside the camp, however, is Clifford not insisting on having a far narrower definition of what constitutes an evangelical compared to the accepted classification? It seems that he is not content for Bebbington's classical definition - allowing room for biblical interpretation - to stand. To be an evangelical today one needs not only to have the Bible at the heart of one's spiritual life but also be bound by a particular way of interpreting it.
Does this suggest that the evangelical movement is turning inwards in the face of the many challenges of our post-Christendom times? And isn't this actually a drift towards fundamentalism?
It would seem that the evangelical *movement* has stopped moving and has become another institution in church history.
ReplyDelete